Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

esa.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 403 posts

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#271

Post by Epa095 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #103
lm28469 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is amazing: Europe does something > Aha it's bad why did they even try Europe doesn't do anything > Aha Europe always late, never innovate, Europe bad

As an European, this project is quite typical for Europe. Technically behind the times, serves French strategic interests, non-competitive on the private launch market. "Doing something" isn't a goal in itself. Ariane 6 in context of the 2020s is similar to programming a new MySpace app for Symbian OS right now. Hard work, costly, needs a lot of qualified workforce, and the product has very limited audience.

You could probably have said the same about Airbus at some point. But now we are pretty happy we don't have to rely on Boeing.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#272

Post by nordsieck »

jltsiren wrote: post #234
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> space start-ups are starving, because nobody sees any business opportunities there I’ve raised money for and invested in space start-ups. There is a lot of opportunity. There are even more vapid PowerPoint decks. > If somebody actually wanted a reusable rocket, the real issue would be engineering, not funding It’s absolutely a problem of funding. You need to be able to tell a group of highly-demanded engineers with…

The lack of funding reflects the lack of interest. For-profit investors don't see the business opportunity and governments don't see the need. There are other uses for the money, and the people with money don't want better rockets that much. Rockets are not particularly expensive, but they are also not particularly relevant.

IMO, a big problem is that SpaceX makes it difficult to enter the market. They keep their prices very low, and have an amazing reliability record. Which makes it tough to close a business case around medium/heavy lift rockets. Especially taking into account development risk.

And it's not any easier trying to make a small-lift rocket. They suck the volume out of that market with their Transporter and Bandwagon launches.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#273

Post by jccooper »

unethical_ban wrote: post #228
nordsieck wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. The first doesn't imply the second. Ariane 6 is behind: * ULA's Vulcan * SpaceX's F9/FH * SpaceX's Starship (who knows when it'll start launching payloads) * Blue Origin's New Glenn (supposed to be launched in September) in terms of raw performance as well as $/kg. There are also a number of other rockets like RocketLab's Neutron and…

Two operational, and a bunch of dreams. Right now, Europe has a functioning rocket program under their own control. I think it's understandable for an engineering community to talk about the tech, but people seem to be forgetting the geopolitics.

You must have some wild dreams. Starship and New Glenn are basically as dreamy as Ariane 6. Starship is essentially operational as an expendable launcher already, and NG is starting the paperwork for first launch.

Ariane 6 will serve fine as an "assured access to space" for the local market (which is important), and good on them for finally getting it off the ground. But it's design goal was "Falcon 9 competitor" and it certainly isn't.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#274

Post by m4rtink »

jjoonathan wrote: post #207
sidewndr46 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that ULA historically purchased engines from Russia, are you suggesting that it was a direct mechanism for transferring tax revenue to Russia companies?

Yes. The idea was to keep the engines (and engineers) out of the hands of the other likely buyers. You've seen how soviet military surplus gets around: the same channels work for rocket engines, and those engines work in ICBMs just as well as they work in orbital launch platforms. I don't know how effective this was. Did it backfire by promoting economies of scale in a program that went on to sell to adversaries anyw…

Well, RD-180 is not really a suitable engine for modern ICBMs due to the need for a cryogenic oxidizer, resulting in the ICBM not being a very responsive design. But you are certainly correct about the engineers.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#275

Post by m4rtink »

nabla9 wrote: post #2

Ariane 6 exists so that European countries can get independent access to space between now and 2030s. The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9. Both platforms can lift 22t to LEO. 6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar: reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts.

The problem with this is, that at that point Europe will be most likely again behind not just Space X, with fully reusable Starship likely being operational but possibly even some Chinese Falcon 9 clones (once they get the hold-down clamps sorted out).

Sure, Ariane 6 is a stop gap and likely has some interesting tech that will be useful later on, but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at the same time, when it became evident how much of a dead end it is.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#276

Post by awiesenhofer »

inglor_cz wrote: post #132
ncruces wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the entire world should rather be dependent on SpaceX, and be done with it? Arianespace had the lead and lost it, because it kept the old way of doing things. Or are you arguing Ariane 5 was technically behind and wasn't competitive in the '00s? Ariane 6 is not that far behind the other "old space" companies, which the US is struggling to keep around as alternatives to SpaceX. It's not like Boeing and ULA are doin…

"So the entire world should rather be dependent on SpaceX, and be done with it?" That is not what I said. We badly need (real) alternatives. But French-government-need-driven development is bringing us nowhere. Paris is happy to have six launches a year and doesn't feel the need to finance and support anything beyond that. The rest of the EU doesn't seem to have any strong motivations either. Yes, the US old space is…

> doesn't feel the need to finance and support anything beyond

Where did you get that idea from? They are financing the development of Ariane Next - Europe's version of a Falcon Heavy - just as the other ESA members do.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#277

Post by panick21_ »

unethical_ban wrote: post #228
nordsieck wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. The first doesn't imply the second. Ariane 6 is behind: * ULA's Vulcan * SpaceX's F9/FH * SpaceX's Starship (who knows when it'll start launching payloads) * Blue Origin's New Glenn (supposed to be launched in September) in terms of raw performance as well as $/kg. There are also a number of other rockets like RocketLab's Neutron and…

Two operational, and a bunch of dreams. Right now, Europe has a functioning rocket program under their own control. I think it's understandable for an engineering community to talk about the tech, but people seem to be forgetting the geopolitics.

They had that before Ariane 6 that cost 5 billion $.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#278

Post by tristor »

m4rtink wrote: post #275
nabla9 wrote: post #2

Ariane 6 exists so that European countries can get independent access to space between now and 2030s. The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9. Both platforms can lift 22t to LEO. 6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar: reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts.

The problem with this is, that at that point Europe will be most likely again behind not just Space X, with fully reusable Starship likely being operational but possibly even some Chinese Falcon 9 clones (once they get the hold-down clamps sorted out). Sure, Ariane 6 is a stop gap and likely has some interesting tech that will be useful later on, but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at…

> but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at the same time, when it became evident how much of a dead end it is.

Redundancy in novel fields is not a waste, it creates opportunities to try subtly different approaches in various places, and in so doing creates new knowledge that can progress all similar projects in the future. At some point, if you dump the same amount of human resources into a single project vs separate projects, you end up with something approaching the same thing, but resources (dollars/people) aren't entirely fungible and having separated projects provides an opportunity for cultural dissimilarity and other human factors to create innovation that would otherwise be stifled in a larger funded project.

Personally, I am really happy to see how much investment from many different angles is happening around space.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#279

Post by m4rtink »

nordsieck wrote: post #50
kuschku wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. All while being independent from the whims of one single individual, ensuring independent launch capabilities for national security reasons.

> Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. The first doesn't imply the second. Ariane 6 is behind: * ULA's Vulcan * SpaceX's F9/FH * SpaceX's Starship (who knows when it'll start launching payloads) * Blue Origin's New Glenn (supposed to be launched in September) in terms of raw performance as well as $/kg. There are also a number of other rockets like RocketLab's Neutron and…

Not to mention the quite cheap flight-proven Indian rockets & a whole bunch of traditional + private Chinese companies, some actively trying to clone Falcon 9 or even Starship.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#280

Post by jjoonathan »

m4rtink wrote: post #274
jjoonathan wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The idea was to keep the engines (and engineers) out of the hands of the other likely buyers. You've seen how soviet military surplus gets around: the same channels work for rocket engines, and those engines work in ICBMs just as well as they work in orbital launch platforms. I don't know how effective this was. Did it backfire by promoting economies of scale in a program that went on to sell to adversaries anyw…

Well, RD-180 is not really a suitable engine for modern ICBMs due to the need for a cryogenic oxidizer, resulting in the ICBM not being a very responsive design. But you are certainly correct about the engineers.

Good point. Still, I have to imagine that the engines themselves are dual use in some regard. GNSS or spy satellites maybe? These days it seems like everyone and their dog has a GNSS constellation, but it wasn't always that way.
Post reply on HN